Help please!!!!

Part 1* The Kilkenny Lumber Company owned and managed a large tract of forest in the northeastern United States. The company employed a number of men to maintain the tract according to modern forestry practices. In rotation, various areas of the tract were annually harvested by removing mature trees. Each winter, in preparation for harvesting and when other forestry tasks were at a standstill, a timber-marking crew composed of eight to ten regular company employees traveled through a selected area designating the trees to be cut and estimating the usable volume of lumber. In the spring, contractors moved over the area removing the marked trees. Tree marking required considerable timbering knowledge and judgment. Once a tree was designated as mature and economic for harvest, height and diameter were calculated, defects estimated, and volume calculated. This volume was recorded along with a number code for the tree and was subsequently used as a basis for payment from the contractor. The code number was painted on the tree itself, as an indication of permission for cutting by the contract crew. Tree-marking errors were costly. Missed trees or improper postponement of cutting meant lost sales and poor contractor relations, the latter depending on the maximum density of mature trees for his profit. Incorrect volume calculations meant lost money to Kilkenny or costly arbitration with the contractor. Destination of immature trees for cutting also cost Kilkenny money, particularly since the harvesting cycle was extremely long. Several procedures had been adopted to reduce the chance of marking errors. The crew formed a moving line, each man fifty feet away from the men on either side. A man's place in line was set by informal crew decision. The line was to keep within a predetermined strip of forest and the men kept in proper relation to each other by periodic shouts to determine relative positions and by supervisory observation. Supervisors also spent considerable time, particularly at the beginning of the winter, training the crew members to make judgments and measurements. Supervisors checked each man's work periodically to make sure it met standards. If not, additional training was given. If it still did not meet standards, the man was assigned to other work if it were available. Although there were no production quotas, the men were expected to keep up with the moving line and mark approximately the same number of trees. Despite occasional variations in terrain, disparity of work loads was not an issue. Working conditions were arduous. Temperatures often fell below 0F. Snow was heavy and often fell during working hours. The terrain was uneven and the men had to carry food and supplies on their backs. Generally the men had not opportunity to dry out or warm up during the twelve hours of daylight in which they work. The crew which began work in December, 1962 (see Table 1), had received timbermarking training, though, as usual, all the men worked at other tasks during the rest of the year. A brief period of further training had been carried out by the leader and his assistant before the crew began regular work. Past timber-marking experience indicated that a crew like this could easily mark timber with the desired accuracy and speed. The Crew leader and his assistant were considered by Kilkenny management to be excellent foresters and teachers. In woodsman tradition, crew leaders were expected to carry out supervisory tasks and at the same time, turn out more individual marking than any one of their men. The leaders of this crew were able to live up to this tradition. Both leaders tended to allow the men privileges not strictly according to regulations, such as long lunch hours before a fire, early departures for home, and frequent work breaks, particularly when the weather was severe. TABLE 1. Kilkenny Lumber Company TIMBER-MARKING CREW, 1962 -Rank was attained by formal education, examination and experience. Professional foresters normally were responsible for maintenance of forest districts, often supervising crews of subprofessional foresters and other lower-ranking woodsmen. * These three men had been assigned to this crew from a distant and organizationally separate district of Kilkenny's land. They were assigned to the crew because of lack of other work and were expected to gain new practical experience from the marking assignment. They customarily worked together in their home district. Unlike the rest of the crew, which lived near the district being marked, these men lived away from home on a subsistence and transportation allowance during the week. Predictions From what I know of the tree-marking operation described in Part 1, I would predict that: 1. Productivity of the crew would be (high) (standard) (below standard). Explain the reasons for your prediction. 2. Crewmen would be (high) (moderately) (dis-) satisfied with their job. Explain why. 3. Group members would (get along well with each other) (get along with some but not others) (not get along well with well with each other). Explain why. If you predict the second alternative, state who you would predict would get along well and who would not.. 4. Crewmen will, in terms of the given job description (do what they are supposed to do, no more or less) (do about what they are supposed to do and some other things as well) (not do many things they are supposed to do but will do other things. Explain your prediction. If you nediet the second or third alternative, briefly deseribe "other things." *Rank was attained by formal education, examination and experience. Professional foressters normally were responsible for maintenance of forest districts, often supervising crews of subprofessional foresters and other lower-ranking woodsmen. ** These three men had been assigned to this crew from a distant and organizationally separate district of Kilkenny's land. They were assigned to the crew because of lack of other work and were expected to gain new practical experience from the marking assignment. They customarily worked together in their home district. Unlike the rest of the crew, which lived near the district being marked, these men lived away from home on a subsistence and transportation allowance during the week. Predictions From what I know of the tree-marking operation described in Part 1, I would predict that: 1. Productivity of the crew would be (high) (standard) (below standard). Explain the reasons for your prediction. 2. Crewmen would be (high) (moderately) (dis-) satisfied with their job. Explain why. 3. Group members would (get along well with each other) (get along with some but not others) (not get along well with well with each other). Explain why. If you predict the second alternative, state who you would predict would get along well and who would not.. 4. Crewmen will, in terms of the given job description (do what they are supposed to do, no more or less) (do about what they are supposed to do and some other things as well) (not do many things they are supposed to do but will do other things. Explain your prediction. If you predict the second or third alternative, briefly describe "other things." 5. The group (or subgroups of the group) will have and/or develop the following belief and informal standards or norms about crew behavior. Explain why, taking care to identify the group or subgroups to which you refer in each instance. The timber-marking crew split into two informal groups soon after work in the forest began. One group was composed of the three professional foresters who had been assigned to the crew from a distant district. They constantly complained about the weather, the inadequacy of equipment, and their leaders. They found the leader to be a taskmaster who worked them too hard, his assistant a busybody who was too fussy about quality. The quantity of work performed by these three ranged between one third and one half of that attained by the other crewmen who were considered to be performing at a normal pace. Efforts at retraining produced no change. Absences among the three were high and excuses, though plentiful, often proved to be fabricated. The three men kept to themselves, building their separate fire at lunch time. The rest of the crew tended to stick together. Although some of these men lacked the skill and training possessed by the professional foresters, the men helped each other and production and quality were high. The leaders, feeling rejected by the three professional foresters, ate with the subprofessionals. The leaders were angered by the three recalcitrant crewmen. They interpreted the latter's ehavior as an attempt to be reassigned to a more pleasant job. Since no other positions were open and because the leaders disliked the thought of giving in to what they considered a play for preferential treatment, they told the three men they would have to stay out in the cold, work or not. Conditions did not improve. Postprediction Analysis Refer to your predictions at the end of Part 1. How closely do they match the information above? Do inaccuracies in your prediction reflect inadequate analysis? If so, explain the analytical failure. If not, what additional information would you have needed in Part 1 to improve your predictive accuracy and how would you have used that information